I care not what some Frank emperor forced the papacy to do (use unleavened bread because he thought it was more "correct" having read about a passover of the jews) the Aramaic clearly says Christ used LEAVENED bread and the gates of hell will not prevail against the apostolic church to use anything other than what the scripture and strong verifiable semitic tradition says. So if protestants want to use unleavened bread to be more like the Jews that's their problem. I know what the scripture teaches the use of leavened bread during the Lordès supper and no deceiver shall argue against me on this. This is a BIG deal, that bread symbolizes his body, that wine his blood. Don't taker another messiah for an answer.

Just in case I wasn't clear: the use of unleavened bread for the Lord's supper is an unscriptural protestant practice inherited from the RCC (which probably had it imposed on them by barbarians during thne dark ages), everybody else in the entire world including my church which has much stronger continuity than Protestants uses the leavened bread and the REAL wine (not grape juice) to represent the body and blood of the savior and keep his memory (which Satan wishes to blot out). To use something else is unscriptural and goes against the tradition of the apostolic church and the most ancient readings of the scriptures .Let he who present another gospel be accursed. The End.

What feast are we keeping? Passover. Who is our lamb? Christ. Who is our bread? Christ. What is the bread? Christ's body, which He sacrificed for us. How then since Christ lived a sinless life in the body, and Paul says we are to keep the feast with unleavened bread, can one partake of Christ as the Passover and do so in the form of leavened bread?

Because He is Living Bread Who comes down from Heaven, not lifeless bread.

Quote

Indeed, the unleavened passover bread holds special symbolism that further drives home this apostolic comparison and injunction. The bread is striped, as Christ was for our healing. The bread is pierced, as Christ was when he shed forth the fount of eternal life. The bread is broken as our Lord explained when he gave it to His disciples at the last supper. Beautiful!

I came across a video of the Proskonesis on the site of a Greek Church that I haven't been able to come across again. Anyone know where it might be?

yes, but the Greek Church video (St. Andrew? Florida? North Carolina?) clearly closed in on the actions of the priest, showing what he was doing, distinctl audio of the prayers (in English), really showing what is going on.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Not without "breaking" Scripture (which is an impossibility, proving the absurdity of any position staked on such a handling of the word).

Hebrews 7:7 Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better. 8 Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives. 9 Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him. 11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron 12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. 13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest 16 who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. 17 For He testifies: "You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

He may be living bread, but He is also unleavened bread, per the Apostle Paul. That's about as apostolic as one can get, btw.

Besides, using the figure of bread, living bread does not denote leavened bread, for the bread broken and eaten is cooked. Leavened or unleavened, there is no more activity in the dough once it is cooked. My point? This is essentially bootstrapping to make leaven and living associate when it comes to Christ being our bread form heaven, much less the bread of Passover being His body.

As to the metaphorical nature of Paul's use of the phrase, again, the metaphor makes NO SENSE unless the basis is real, or in this case literal. Associations to Passover, keeping the feast, and eating unleavened bread must refer to the literal observance and use of such in order for any extrapolation Paul intends to hold. Else Paul is nonsensical here (as if).

Besides, a cursory familiarity with Jewish festival customs should indicate the virtual impossibility of Christ using leavened bread, even if this was the night before the day the Passover/Unleavened Bread festival began. In preparing for the Passover all leaven, and all things leavened, would have been removed from all places of residence and meal preparations (save for the small bit retained for the final ceremonial cleansing to kick off the festival proper).

« Last Edit: February 02, 2010, 12:58:56 AM by Cleopas »

Logged

CleopasChristopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley

Protestants have no idea what they are messing with here when they try to change the laws and the times on something this critical. They deny the real presence which is held by EVERY apostolic church which was ever founded via laying on of hands, and they EVEN change the composition of the bread (which is now merely "symbolic") to try to force another messiah in their own image.

I'm not sure that the Armenians used unleaven bread because they thought it was a Seder. The only reason I've read was because they considered leaven to represent sin and Christ is sinless.

Correct. However he TOOK our sins upon him. In fact, The code name for the Messiah in rabbinic literature (besides "the branch") is "the leprous one" meaning the one who took the sins and illness of the people upon him (unjustly and unmeritedly). That was taken from the official rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah 53 by the way, before someone called Rashi said it never talked about Christ.

Besides, a cursory familiarity with Jewish festival customs should indicate the virtual impossibility of Christ using leavened bread

We walk in the way of the Apostles. If the Jews agree that's excellent, if not too bad.

Quote

As to the metaphorical nature of Paul's use of the phrase, again, the metaphor makes NO SENSE unless the basis is real, or in this case literal. Associations to Passover, keeping the feast, and eating unleavened bread must refer to the literal observance and use of such in order for any extrapolation Paul intends to hold. Else Paul is nonsensical here (as if Roll Eyes).

I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? John 3:12

Plain scripture says unleavened Bread. The Aramaic says so. The Greek says so. The tradition of the Apostolic Church says so minus the RCC and Protestants, but this is ONLY because I suspect this sort of anti-scripture bias or the influence of foreign secular powers crept in.

He may be living bread, but He is also unleavened bread, per the Apostle Paul. That's about as apostolic as one can get, btw.

No, my bishop saying what the Church says St. Paul is saying is as apostolic as one can get. With all due respect, you telling me that St. Paul says that falls quite short.

Quote

Besides, using the figure of bread, living bread does not denote leavened bread, for the bread broken and eaten is cooked. Leavened or unleavened, there is no more activity in the dough once it is cooked. My point? This is essentially bootstrapping to make leaven and living associate when it comes to Christ being our bread form heaven, much less the bread of Passover being His body.

Luke 13:20-1 And again He said, "To what shall I compare the kingdom of God? "It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three pecks of flour until it was all leavened."

Quote

As to the metaphorical nature of Paul's use of the phrase, again, the metaphor makes NO SENSE unless the basis is real, or in this case literal. Associations to Passover, keeping the feast, and eating unleavened bread must refer to the literal observance and use of such in order for any extrapolation Paul intends to hold. Else Paul is nonsensical here (as if).

Rather odd that you are so dogmatic about that, as most Radical Protestants (as in Radical Reformation), hold that observances of feast days were abolished. So you hold that celebrating Easter is required by the NT? That passover has given over to Pascha? As Hebrews shows, the Law has been changed. And what of all the admonitions of St. Paul to "purge out the old leaven that you may be a new lump.

Quote

Besides, a cursory familiarity with Jewish festival customs

As they are celebrated now: it never ceases to amaze me how Protestants, who won't accept the Tradition of the Church, take the traditions that the present days Jews preserve from the pharisees as the Gospel truth, whether it be their preference of the late Masoretic text (fixed Nearly a millenium after the Church's Septuagint), or the preference of the Talmud's interpretation over the Fathers of the Church.

should indicate the virtual impossibility of Christ using leavened bread, even if this was the night before the day the Passover/Unleavened Bread festival began. In preparing for the Passover all leaven, and all things leavened, would have been removed from all places of residence and meal preparations (save for the small bit retained for the final ceremonial cleansing to kick off the festival proper).

That first Eucharist was that last small bit, the Saved Remnaint.

Btw, another twist on the "artos controversy" is the use of "λάγανον" "cake" for unleaven bread (some translations I see now use "wafer"), ex. the Greek of Exodus 29:23. Azymites aren't spoken of as loaves, but cakes. So that loaf we break in I Corinthians is leavened: otherwise we would be breaking cakes.

I know that some Protestants hold that St. Paul wrote Corinthians in the context of Passover and hence the reference. However, he throws out the off hand remark in a long passage about sexual immorality (one of the Corinthians' special vices), in which the leaven is specifically identified as teaching, and exchanging good leaven for bad. It has nothing to do with proper rubrics for the Eucharist, which doesn't come until several chapters later.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I'm at the Hospital with my wife giving birth to our little baby boy Aidan but she is resting before the 'big moment'.

So I was readying some and I want to ask ialmisry... speaking of 'artos'... isn't it fair to admit that even within the Old Testament the Greek word 'artos' is also used for 'unleavened' bread? As I understand, it is so I'm not sure if arguing that 'artos' is only for 'leavened bread' doesn't seem to be as strong?

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

If you follow the Johannine account of the Last Supper, then, liturgically, you use regular bread for the Eucharist. If you follow the Synoptic accounts, you use unleavened bread. This arises because of a difference between the two accounts concerning whether the mean was the Passover Seder or a Kiddush eaten before the first day of Passover began.

I think if we were following the Johannine account we wouldn't be breaking bread at all... just washing feet...

John 6 becomes absolute gibberish if you don't know that He is speaking of the Eucharist. Again, St. John presupposes (and the Church did too: John was not read to catechumens, but only after their baptism, the reason why the Lectionary in Pachal time is from St. John) you know the basic story already. Case in point, Nicodemus coming in the beginning speaks of signs (plural), where the Gospel of John has only narrated that of Cana, a sign that Nicodemos no doubt did not witness. St. John at one point states (3:24) "For John had not yet been thrown into prison," but nowhere does St. John narrate the Forerunner's imprisionment. He assumes you read that already in the Synoptics.

Read Chapter 6.

Yeah, I know but was talking about the specific Last Supper... err.. Last Feet Washing...

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

As they are celebrated now: it never ceases to amaze me how Protestants, who won't accept the Tradition of the Church, take the traditions that the present days Jews preserve from the pharisees as the Gospel truth, whether it be their preference of the late Masoretic text (fixed Nearly a millenium after the Church's Septuagint), or the preference of the Talmud's interpretation over the Fathers of the Church.

Exactly. Some modern Jewish customs are quite recent additions, and it is sometimes difficult to discern which ones are ancient and which are innovations. And as you point out, it is on the other hand sometimes not hard to discover which parts of modern Jewish belief and practice are innovative. (The question regarding the Masoretic text is a very good example of this.) And as to your point with reference to certain Protestants being very concerned with (modern) Jewish practice, and not with practice in the early and Patristic eras of the Church, I think this is very well taken.

Quote

I know that some Protestants hold that St. Paul wrote Corinthians in the context of Passover and hence the reference. However, he throws out the off hand remark in a long passage about sexual immorality (one of the Corinthians' special vices), in which the leaven is specifically identified as teaching, and exchanging good leaven for bad. It has nothing to do with proper rubrics for the Eucharist, which doesn't come until several chapters later.

A very good expansion of my objections to what I consider to be very errant proof-texting.

I know that some Protestants hold that St. Paul wrote Corinthians in the context of Passover and hence the reference. However, he throws out the off hand remark in a long passage about sexual immorality (one of the Corinthians' special vices), in which the leaven is specifically identified as teaching, and exchanging good leaven for bad. It has nothing to do with proper rubrics for the Eucharist, which doesn't come until several chapters later.

Nevertheless, Paul still refers to the bread of our feasting as unleavened. The metaphor will NOT work if that bread is indeed leavened. Skirt it all you like, decry the fact that Paul uses it with an abstract application, it will not change the necessity of the bread referred to by metaphor being unleavened, else Paul makes no valid point, is nonsensical, and obviously is not writing under inspiration of the Spirit of God. Leavened bread just will not do, cause no matter how you twist it, Paul has associated our feasting, our Christ, and unleavened bread in eternal union. After all, God's word is settled forever in heaven, and what Paul wrote is merely an accurate reflection thereof, penned under special guidance of the Deity itself.

Argue all you like, unless you can prove Paul was uninspired OR that the translation is emphatically wrong and should read "let us keep the feast with the leavened bread of sincerity and truth" then I'm gonna stick with Apostle Paul.

« Last Edit: February 02, 2010, 01:10:14 PM by Cleopas »

Logged

CleopasChristopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley

As they are celebrated now: it never ceases to amaze me how Protestants, who won't accept the Tradition of the Church, take the traditions that the present days Jews preserve from the pharisees as the Gospel truth, whether it be their preference of the late Masoretic text (fixed Nearly a millenium after the Church's Septuagint), or the preference of the Talmud's interpretation over the Fathers of the Church.

Exactly.

Well, can either of you prove that the things to which I referred have no ancient validation nor Messianic application?

Logged

CleopasChristopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley

I know that some Protestants hold that St. Paul wrote Corinthians in the context of Passover and hence the reference. However, he throws out the off hand remark in a long passage about sexual immorality (one of the Corinthians' special vices), in which the leaven is specifically identified as teaching, and exchanging good leaven for bad. It has nothing to do with proper rubrics for the Eucharist, which doesn't come until several chapters later.

Nevertheless, Paul still refers to the bread of our feasting as unleavened. The metaphor will NOT work if that bread is indeed leavened. Skirt it all you like, decry the fact that Paul uses it with an abstract application, it will not change the necessity of the bread refereed to by metaphor being unleavened, else Paul makes no valid point, is nonsensical, and obviously is not writing under inspiration of the Spirit of God. Leavened bread just will not do, cause no matter how you twist it, Paul has associated our feasting, our Christ, and unleavened bread in eternal union. After all, God's word is settled forever in heaven, and what Paul wrote is merely an accurate reflection thereof, penned under special guidance of the Deity itself.

Argue all you like, unless you can prove Paul was uninspired OR that the translation is emphatically wrong and should read "let us keep the feast with the leavened bread of sincerity and truth" then I'm gonna stick with Apostle Paul.

Wow, you do have a very persuasive argument style. Very confident. To the point.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

I'm at the Hospital with my wife giving birth to our little baby boy Aidan but she is resting before the 'big moment'.

So I was readying some and I want to ask ialmisry... speaking of 'artos'... isn't it fair to admit that even within the Old Testament the Greek word 'artos' is also used for 'unleavened' bread? As I understand, it is so I'm not sure if arguing that 'artos' is only for 'leavened bread' doesn't seem to be as strong?

Congratulations. St. Anne be with her.

No, ἄρτος is used only by way of analogy for unleavened bread. The term ἄζυμος is quite common in the OT LXX, as is the Feast of Unleavened [Bread] ἑορτῇ τῶν ἀζύμων,(Bread is in brackets because it is not in the Greek), which became such a techinical term (like ἐπίσκοπος) that it was adopted straight into Latin (like episcopus) and passed (like >bishop) into English:Azymes (used in the Douay-Rheims). Because of the technicalities involved in Passover Mazzot, it is quite rare if not unknown to use the default word for "bread" in such a context. It is as technical as mazzas/mazzot are in English. It would be as odd to refer to them as ἄρτος as to talk about bread during Passover: ἄρτος/bread is precisely what you are not supposed to be eating.

Deut. 16:3 3 You shall not eat with it leavened bread: seven days shall you eat without leaven, the bread of affliction" is often cited for support of this loose terminology, but the Greek reads 3 οὐ φάγῃ ἐπ' αὐτοῦ ζύμην ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας φάγῃ ἐπ' αὐτοῦ ἄζυμα ἄρτον κακώσεως "unleavened [bread], the Bread of Afflication," i.e. a rather ironic apposition of sorts in the use of ἄρτος. Bread is in brackets, because it does not appear in the Greek. Judges 6:20 "And the angel of the Lord said to him: Take the flesh and the unleavened loaves, and lay them upon that rock, and pour out the broth thereon. And when he had done so." is also used as proof. But the Greek reads ἄρτους τοὺς ἀζύμους, and then in the next verse (where English has "unleavened loaves," and Latin "panes azymos" and the bizarre "carnes azymosque panes") Greek has just ἀζύμους. This would be an unusual reference to unleavened bread being in loaves as instead of cakes, and indeed the LXX varient in verse 20 is ἄζυμα. The showbread are also cited as an example, but the Scripture does not state that they were unleavened.

Eating the Passover is a common expression in Hebrew and Aramaic (appearing only once, in II Esdars 6:21, in the LXX), but no expression "Eating the Mazzoth" appears for Passover. Again, it is determinative that no lamb (except of course, THE Lamb of God) is in the synoptics. Which is a problem, because ἄρτος is the word without exception used in reference to the Mystical Supper, although bare ἄρτος is never used in reference to the Passover, nor the mazzoth.

Btw, the Latin defense has depended on a twisting of St. Jerome's mistranslation. The NT text says "A little leaven leavens the whole loaf." The Vulgate reads "corrupts the whole loaf," which makes little sense since St. Paul is telling us to be the new leaven of Christ. As the Theological Dictionary above shows, the Synoptics (the one with the date problem) portray leaven "as a kind of dynamis which, although present in only a small measure (restricted to Jesus and His followers or to Jesus Himself and His small sphere of possible operation) is ordained and able to penetrate the whole world.The Byzantine lists: errors of the Latins By Tia M. Kolbabahttp://books.google.com/books?id=X8F9EghcuD8C&pg=PA37&dq=Byzantine+lists+leavened+corrumpit&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

If you follow the Johannine account of the Last Supper, then, liturgically, you use regular bread for the Eucharist. If you follow the Synoptic accounts, you use unleavened bread. This arises because of a difference between the two accounts concerning whether the mean was the Passover Seder or a Kiddush eaten before the first day of Passover began.

I think if we were following the Johannine account we wouldn't be breaking bread at all... just washing feet...

John 6 becomes absolute gibberish if you don't know that He is speaking of the Eucharist. Again, St. John presupposes (and the Church did too: John was not read to catechumens, but only after their baptism, the reason why the Lectionary in Pachal time is from St. John) you know the basic story already. Case in point, Nicodemus coming in the beginning speaks of signs (plural), where the Gospel of John has only narrated that of Cana, a sign that Nicodemos no doubt did not witness. St. John at one point states (3:24) "For John had not yet been thrown into prison," but nowhere does St. John narrate the Forerunner's imprisionment. He assumes you read that already in the Synoptics.

Read Chapter 6.

Yeah, I know but was talking about the specific Last Supper... err.. Last Feet Washing...

John 6 becomes absolute gibberish if you don't know that He is speaking of the Eucharist. Again, St. John presupposes (and the Church did too: John was not read to catechumens, but only after their baptism, the reason why the Lectionary in Pachal time is from St. John) you know the basic story already. Case in point, Nicodemus coming in the beginning speaks of signs (plural), where the Gospel of John has only narrated that of Cana, a sign that Nicodemos no doubt did not witness. St. John at one point states (3:24) "For John had not yet been thrown into prison," but nowhere does St. John narrate the Forerunner's imprisionment. He assumes you read that already in the Synoptics.

« Last Edit: February 02, 2010, 02:07:31 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

We must look to the other element in the Eucharist. Namely the wine which also needs yeast to ferment.

« Last Edit: February 02, 2010, 02:58:14 PM by Demetrios G. »

Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.

Note: The Third Cup is customarily poured before the Grace after Meals is recited...

Eliyahu ha-Navi (cup of Elijah the Prophet)

Hallel (songs of praise) - 4th Cup is consumed after the Hallel

Nirtzah

Okay, so it does look like to me that Our Lord is continuing the Seder... Do some look at Our Lord's Cup as being 'added' to the whole cup count? Are there four cups or just three?

It's important to keep in mind how the Passover Seder within Judaism is celebrated today is not necessarily how Passover Seder was celebrated at the time of Christ. There really isn't much documented information about the "order" of the Seder until Talmudic times, and in fact what is documented from 2nd temple Judaism often times seems to contradict Rabbinic Judaism's celebration of it. By that I mean the "order", liturgically speaking, not it's over all theme, tradition, or meaning behind it which has remained the same. But the details. So trying to draw theology by looking at Jesus celebrating a Seder, then trying to plug that meal into a 5th century model is a horrible, horrible mistake, historically speaking.

So while Rabbinic Judaism gives us a very good starting point, it's a big, big mistake to assume 5th century Judaism was the same thing as the Judaism of Jesus day, particularly in practice.

Just try and keep that in mind. It's also important to keep in mind that there was no "one" way of celebrating a Seder in Jesus' time. Much of it was pretty free or so I've read. (see: In the Shadow of the Temple by Oskar Skaursaune)

Judaism was not a monolithic block, and there is in fact archaeological evidence suggesting Judaism used multiple calendars in the 1st century, so Passover could have fallen for different groups of Jews on different days. (usually within one or two days difference) I think I had once read the Essenes used a different calendar (solar? . . .maybe Ialmisry can give some insight on that?) to determine passover, or at least that is scholarly speculation.

The truth is this is not a new debate, and goes way, way back to the early Church. it's been discussed by scholars, ancient, and modern, historians, secular and religious, and everyone in between. And I think the true answer to "was the last supper a Seder?" is we really do not know.

As for Protestant opinions, some of the best NT scholars in the field are Protestant, and many of them say "we don't know"....as do many preachers, and ministers within Protestantism. When I was a protestant I was taught both sides at different stages. In some circles it's strongly favored that it was NOT a Passover Seder, and that Jesus died while the Passover lambs were being slaughtered, thus Jesus IS the Passover lamb. the imagery is obviously powerful, and of course is basically the position of the Eastern Church. But other Protestants believe it indeed was a Passover Seder, which invokes it's own imagery. However i've always found that idea odd, that on the first day of Passover Jews were out trying to get Jesus crucified, and in fact were watching Him and taunting Him, in the first day of Passover. That never made much sense to me. But that's my personal bias.

I guess you should ask yourself what you are seeking. Which is more historically accurate? (ie: what happened in real history) Or are you asking what you "want" to be true based on long standing traditions of your particular Church? The historical question, most scholars contend has no definitive answer as of yet.

Here's a brief article from a Rabbi who contends that it was in fact, NOT a Seder:

There is so much conflicting evidence on this subject in the Gospels, and on many subjects in fact, that since very early on, Christians have always tried to "harmonize" the Gospels, and it always comes up short. This shouldn't destroy anyone's faith, anymore than finding out Matthew the apostle probably didn't write the Gospel of Matthew.....however it still stands firmly in that specific tradition, just like John's gospel does. Maybe some day they'll dig up more evidence to give definitive evidence but historically speaking I don't think there is any way to know for sure, at least not yet.

As they are celebrated now: it never ceases to amaze me how Protestants, who won't accept the Tradition of the Church, take the traditions that the present days Jews preserve from the pharisees as the Gospel truth, whether it be their preference of the late Masoretic text (fixed Nearly a millenium after the Church's Septuagint), or the preference of the Talmud's interpretation over the Fathers of the Church.

Exactly.

Well, can either of you prove that the things to which I referred have no ancient validation nor Messianic application?

The passage is talking about sexual immorality. No Messianic application, except heresy.

As to ancient validation, the universal usage of the Church has been leavened bread.

I'lll post St. John Chrysostom sermon on the passage, which is rather interesting and of course on point, when I get back. Fatherhood calls.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

As they are celebrated now: it never ceases to amaze me how Protestants, who won't accept the Tradition of the Church, take the traditions that the present days Jews preserve from the pharisees as the Gospel truth, whether it be their preference of the late Masoretic text (fixed Nearly a millenium after the Church's Septuagint), or the preference of the Talmud's interpretation over the Fathers of the Church.

Exactly.

Well, can either of you prove that the things to which I referred have no ancient validation nor Messianic application?

The passage is talking about sexual immorality. No Messianic application, except heresy.

As to ancient validation, the universal usage of the Church has been leavened bread.

A quick FYI ... I was referring to calling in question the specific references I made to Jewish festival customs. Can you prove them to have no ancient validation or Messianic application?

Quote

I'lll post St. John Chrysostom sermon on the passage, which is rather interesting and of course on point, when I get back. Fatherhood calls.

As to Chrysostom's sermon, post away. I'm still standing with Apostle Paul. ;-)

You mean St. Paul according to infallible Pope Cleopas I.

Ha ha! I anticipated the likelihood of such a response, though in truth, no. Not according to Cleopas, but according to Paul, by his own hand (or dictation as it were), under inspiration of God, and preserved in Holy writ. Alas, it seems we have reached the dreaded impasse. Nevertheless, here I stand, so help me God.

« Last Edit: February 02, 2010, 07:29:30 PM by Cleopas »

Logged

CleopasChristopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley

Nevertheless, Paul still refers to the bread of our feasting as unleavened. The metaphor will NOT work if that bread is indeed leavened. Skirt it all you like, decry the fact that Paul uses it with an abstract application, it will not change the necessity of the bread referred to by metaphor being unleavened, else Paul makes no valid point, is nonsensical, and obviously is not writing under inspiration of the Spirit of God. Leavened bread just will not do, cause no matter how you twist it, Paul has associated our feasting, our Christ, and unleavened bread in eternal union. After all, God's word is settled forever in heaven, and what Paul wrote is merely an accurate reflection thereof, penned under special guidance of the Deity itself.

Argue all you like, unless you can prove Paul was uninspired OR that the translation is emphatically wrong and should read "let us keep the feast with the leavened bread of sincerity and truth" then I'm gonna stick with Apostle Paul.

IMHO your interpretation of Paul is corrupt and way off the mark and you arrogantly refuse to even entertain the possibility that others (for example, the mind of a Church that claims a 2,000 year continuous history) might be correct and you might be wrong. We have offered our thoughts here and you simply continue with the intellectual and spiritual equivalent of covering your ears and yelling LALALALALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU, I CAN"T HEAR YOU!!!! I bear you no ill will, but I frankly see little point in continuing to discuss this matter with you.

As they are celebrated now: it never ceases to amaze me how Protestants, who won't accept the Tradition of the Church, take the traditions that the present days Jews preserve from the pharisees as the Gospel truth, whether it be their preference of the late Masoretic text (fixed Nearly a millenium after the Church's Septuagint), or the preference of the Talmud's interpretation over the Fathers of the Church.

Exactly.

Well, can either of you prove that the things to which I referred have no ancient validation nor Messianic application?

The passage is talking about sexual immorality. No Messianic application, except heresy.

As to ancient validation, the universal usage of the Church has been leavened bread.

A quick FYI ... I was referring to calling in question the specific references I made to Jewish festival customs. Can you prove them to have no ancient validation or Messianic application?

Icon depicting St. Paul inspiring St. John Chrysostom's commentaries of his Epistles. It is worth noting that St. John's ear in which St. Paul spoke to him is still incorrupt to this day, and is visible on his Sacred Head.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Wrong my friend...you are unfortunately speaking for yourself since the COE (my church) which descends from the very first people who accepted the Gospel say you are- As do the records, the interpretative history of the NT, and what my Greek compatriots here at the Orthodox forum testify for. The Aramaic which Jesus spoke testifies that the bread he used was leavened, as does the Greek. The use of unleavened bread is unscriptural and an addition. So is this business of the Eucharist being "symbolic". I'll trust the patriarchs of my church over John Hagee or Ted Haggard.

As to Chrysostom's sermon, post away. I'm still standing with Apostle Paul. ;-)

You mean St. Paul according to infallible Pope Cleopas I.

Ha ha! I anticipated the likelihood of such a response, though in truth, no. Not according to Cleopas, but according to Paul, by his own hand (or dictation as it were), under inspiration of God, and preserved in Holy writ. Alas, it seems we have reached the dreaded impasse. Nevertheless, here I stand, so help me God.

According to St. John Chrysostom, by his own hand, dictated as it were by St. Paul, under inspiration by God and preserved in the Holy Writ and Apostolic Tradition of Holy Mother Church of the living God the pillar and ground of the Truth (1 Timothy 3:15).http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf112.iv.xvi.html

Quote

1 Cor. v. 1, 2

Quote

It is actually reported that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not even named among the Gentiles, that one of you hath his father’s wife. And ye are puffed up, and did not rather mourn, that he that had done this deed might be taken away from among you.

When he was discoursing about their divisions, he did not indeed at once address them vehemently, but more gently at first; and afterwards, he ended in accusation, saying thus, (c. 1. xi.) “For it hath been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them which are of the household of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.” But in this place, not so; but he lays about him immediately and makes the reproach of the accusation as general as possible. For he said not, “Why did such an one commit fornication?” but, “It is reported that there is fornication among you;” that they might as persons altogether aloof from his charge take it easily; but might be filled with such anxiety as was natural when the whole body was wounded, and the Church had incurred reproach. “For no one,” saith he, “will state it thus, ‘such an one hath committed fornication,’ but, ‘in the Church of Corinthians that sin hath been committed.’”

As I have pointed out, the section is on fornication, not rubrics. Even heresy as spiritual fornication is not the topic, as the contrast St. John makes here between this and where St. Paul speaks of schism/heresy. The emphasis on the Church as a body, the Body, however is and will be key to the understanding of the passage.

Quote

And he said not, “Fornication is perpetrated,” but, “Is reported,—such as is not even named among the Gentiles.” For so continually he makes the Gentiles a topic of reproach to the believers. Thus writing to the Thessalonians, he said, (1 Thess. iv. 4, 5,) “Let every one possess himself of his own vessel in sanctification, not in the passion of lust, even as the rest of the Gentiles.” And to the Colossians and Ephesians, (Ephes. iv. 17. cf. Col. iii. 6, 7.) “That you should no longer walk, as the other Gentiles walk.” Now if their committing the same sins was unpardonable, when they even outdid the Gentiles, what place can we find for them? tell me: “inasmuch as among the Gentiles,” so he speaks, “not only they dare no such thing, but they do not even give it a name. Do you see to what point he aggravated his charge? For when they are convicted of inventing such modes of uncleanness as the unbelievers, so far from venturing on them, do not even know of, the sin must be exceeding great, beyond all words. And the clause, “among you,” is spoken also emphatically; that is, “Among you, the faithful, who have been favored with so high mysteries, the partakers of secrets, the guests invited to heaven.” Dost thou mark with what indignant feeling his works overflow? with what anger against all? For had it not been for the great wrath of which he was full, had he not been setting himself against them all, he would have spoken thus: “Having heard that such and such a person hath committed fornication, I charge you to punish him.” But as it is he doth not so; he rather challenges all at once. And indeed, if they had written first, this is what he probably would have said. Since however so far from writing, they had even thrown the fault into the shade, on this account he orders his discourse more vehemently.

Again, the emphasis of all, although a specific few are meant, because all are implicated.

Quote

[2.] “That one of you should have his father’s wife.” Wherefore said he not, “That he should abuse his father’s wife?” The extreme foulness of the deed caused him to shrink. He hurries by it accordingly, with a sort of scrupulousness as though it had been explicitly mentioned before. And hereby again he aggravates the charge, implying that such things are ventured on among them as even to speak plainly of was intolerable for Paul. Wherefore also, as he goes on, he uses the same mode of speech, saying, “Him who hath so done this thing:” and is again ashamed and blushes to speak out; which also we are wont to do in regard of matters extremely disgraceful. And he said not, “his step-mother,” but, “his father’s wife;” so as to strike much more severely. For when the mere terms are sufficient to convey the charge, he proceeds with them simply, adding nothing.

And “tell me not,” saith he, “that the fornicator is but one: the charge hath become common to all.” Wherefore at once he added, “and ye are puffed up:” he said not, “with the sin;” for this would imply want of all reason: but with the doctrine you have heard from that person.

Here we come to the nexus of what the passage is about, and what misuse it has been put, as we will see.

Quote

This however he set not down himself, but left it undetermined, that he might inflict a heavier blow.

And mark the good sense of Paul. Having first overthrown the wisdom from without, and signified that it is nothing by itself although no sin were associated with it; then and not till then he discourses about the sin also. For if by way of comparison with the fornicator who perhaps was some wise one, he had maintained the greatness of his own spiritual gift; he had done no great thing: but even when unattended with sin to take down the heathen wisdom and demonstrate it to be nothing, this was indicating its extreme worthlessness indeed. Wherefore first, as I said, having made the comparison, he afterwards mentions the man’s sin also.

And with him indeed he condescends not to debate, and thereby signifies the exceeding greatness of his dishonor. But to the others he saith, “You ought to weep and wail, and cover your faces, but now ye do the contrary.” And this is the force of the next clause, “And ye are puffed up, and did not rather mourn.”

Again, the implication of the whole by part of it.

Quote

“And why are we to weep?” some might say. Because the reproach hath made its way even unto the whole body of your Church. “And what good are we to get by our weeping?” “That such an one should be taken away from you.” Not even here doth he mention his name; rather, I should say, not any where; which in all monstrous things is our usual way.

And he said not, “Ye have not rather cast him out,” but, as in the case of any disease or pestilence, “there is need of mourning,” saith he, “and of intense supplication, ‘that he may be taken away.’ And you should have used prayer for this, and left nothing undone that he should be cut off.”

Of course that treatment is possible when a limb can be cut off, but when, say, cancer is spread throughout, like say yeast in a lump of dough, what can be done? Hence St. John (and St. Paul)'s line of argument here: one for all and all for one.

I'm going to break St. John's sermon up, as to make commenting easier. At this point St. Paul (and St. John) turns to the theme of teaching, which is common to what he is actually talking about, and the words being put in his mouth by the azymites.

Quote

Nor yet doth he accuse them for not having given him information, but for not having mourned so that the man should be taken away; implying that even without their Teacher this ought to have been done, because of the notoriety of the offence.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Despite Chrysostom & as noted previously, Paul still refers to the bread of our feasting as unleavened. That metaphor just will NOT work if the bread is indeed leavened. ... Argue all you like, unless you can prove Paul was uninspired OR that the translation is emphatically wrong and should read "let us keep the feast with the leavened bread of sincerity and truth" then I'm gonna stick with Apostle Paul.

Logged

CleopasChristopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley

Despite Chrysostom & as noted previously, Paul still refers to the bread of our feasting as unleavened. That metaphor just will NOT work if the bread is indeed leavened. ... Argue all you like, unless you can prove Paul was uninspired OR that the translation is emphatically wrong and should read "let us keep the feast with the leavened bread of sincerity and truth" then I'm gonna stick with Apostle Paul.

you mean with the old leaven of Judaism, which we haven't gotten to yet (step-sonship called this time): Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye eat azymes, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that eats azymes, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

And the Spirit has leavened that Faith through the episcopacy shared by St. Paul and St. John, the leaven of the Kingdom of Heaven and the Apostolic Doctrine. I return to that new lump of Christ:

Quote

Quote

[3.] Ver. 3. “For I verily being absent in body, but present in spirit.”

Mark his energy. He suffers them not even to wait for his presence, nor to receive him first and then pass the sentence of binding: but as if on the point of expelling some contagion before that it have spread itself into the rest of the body, he hastens to restrain it. And therefore he subjoins the clause, “I have judged already, as though I were present.” These things moreover he said, not only to urge them unto the declaration of their sentence and to give them no opportunity of contriving something else, but also to frighten them, as one who knew what was to be done and determined there. For this is the meaning of being “present in spirit:” as Elisha was present with Gehazi, and said, “Went not my heart with thee? (2 Kings v. 26.) Wonderful! How great is the power of the gift, in that it makes all to be together and as one; and qualifies them to know the things which are far off. “I have judged already as though I were present.”

Here St. Paul is talking about what the Vatican calls its Magisterium, and we call the charism of the episcopacy, and what the Protestants do not call anything because they do not have it, and hang on to the semikha of the rabbis instead. The Church gathered around its bishop constitutes the Catholic Church (as St. Ignatius tells us, in the oldest attestation of the title) only when he give Apostolic voice to the Spirit Who animates her. Only when He permeates them like leaven in the one loaf in the hand of their bishop, can they be spoken of as One and Holy. It is how, like Christ, the Apostles and their successors the bishops teach us as one having authority, and not as the scribes of the law (Matthew 7:28):

Quote

He permits them not to have any other device. “Now I have uttered my decision as if I were present: let there be no delays and puttings off: for nothing else must be done.”

Then lest he should be thought too authoritative and his speech sound rather self-willed, mark how he makes them also partners in the sentence. For having said, “I have judged,” he adds, “concerning him that hath so wrought this thing, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, ye being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan.

Such is the corporate nature of the Body of Christ: the episcopacy provides the spine attached to her Head Christ, but the other members are attached and invovled. Hence the power of the least bit of leaven, good or bad, the leaven of Christ or the leaven Satan tries to introduce into the lump.

Quote

Now what means, “In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ?” “According to God;” “not possessed with any human prejudice.”

Some, however, read thus, “Him that hath so wrought this thing in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,” and putting a stop there or a break, then subjoin what follows, saying, “When you are gathered together and my spirit to deliver such an one unto Satan:” and they assert that the sense of this reading is as follows, “Him that hath done this thing in the Name of Christ,” saith St. Paul, “deliver ye unto Satan;” that is, “him that hath done insult unto the Name of Christ, him that, after he had become a believer and was called after that appellation, hath dared to do such things, deliver ye unto Satan.” But to me the former exposition appears the truer.

Both readings of St. Paul claim to stick with St. Paul? Which is correct, if it is a matter of black and white dogma? The proof is in what leaven was put in the loaf, that of the Apostles or that of the Pharisees: beware the leaven of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Herod.

Quote

What then is this? “When ye are gathered together in the Name of the Lord.” That is; His Name, in whose behalf ye have met, collecting you together.

“And my spirit.” Again he sets himself at their head in order that when they should pass sentence, they might no otherwise cut off the offender than as if he were present; and that no one might dare to judge him pardonable, knowing that Paul would be aware of the proceedings.

That is to stick with St. Paul, to speak with his authority, the authority of the power to bind and loose and to teach bestowed on the episcopacy by Christ, the leaven of the Church, the power of the keys that St. Paul continues to expound on:

Quote

[4.] Then making it yet more awful, he saith, “with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ;” that is, either that Christ is able to give you such grace as that you should have power to deliver him to the devil; or that He is Himself together with you passing that sentence against him.

And he said not, “Give up” such an one to Satan, but “deliver;” opening unto him the doors of repentance, and delivering up such an one as it were to a schoolmaster. And again it is, “such an one:” he no where can endure to make mention of his name.

lest anyone doubt such power, and mistake that the Church does not act with the authority of Christ, unlike the scribes of the law. "He who rejects you reject Me, and he who rejectes Me rejects Him Who sent Me": those who refuse the leaven of the Apostles are not raised in the Spirit into the Kingdom of Heaven. And if you are not leavened by the Apostles, you do not remain unleavened, but are leavened by someone or something else. Luke 11:25, swept clean of leaven, as St. Paul expounds on the real topic of this passage: not rubrics, but pastoral theology:

Quote

“For the destruction of the flesh.” As was done in the case of the blessed Job, but not upon the same ground. For in that case it was for brighter crowns, but here for loosing of sins; that he might scourge him with a grievous sore or some other disease. True it is that elsewhere he saith, “Of the Lord are we judged, (1 Cor. xi. 32.) when we suffer these things.” But here, desirous of making them feel it more severely, he “delivereth up unto Satan.” And so this too which God had determined ensued, that the man’s flesh was chastised. For because inordinate eating and carnal luxuriousness are the parents of desires, it is the flesh which he chastises.

“That the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus;” that is the soul. Not as though this were saved alone, but because it was a settled point that if that were saved, without all controversy the body too would partake in its salvation. For as it became mortal because of the soul’s sinning: so if this do righteousness, that also on the other hand shall enjoy great glory.

But some maintain, that “the Spirit” is the Gracious Gift which is extinguished when we sin. “In order then that this may not happen,” saith he, “let him be punished; that thereby becoming better, he may draw down to himself God’s grace, and be found having it safe in that day.” So that all comes as from one exercising a nurse’s or a physician’s office, not merely scourging nor punishing rashly and at random. For the gain is greater than the punishment: one being but for a season, the other everlasting.

And he said not simply, “That the spirit may be saved,” but “in that day.” Well and seasonably doth he remind them of that day in order that both they might more readily apply themselves to the cure, and that the person censured might the rather receive his words, not as it were of anger, but as the forethought of an anxious father. For this cause also he said, “unto the destruction of the flesh:” proceeding to lay down regulations for the devil and not suffering him to go a step too far. As in the instance of Job, God said, (Job ii. 6.) “But touch not his life.”

St. Paul next turns to the heart of your argument, I'll pick it up there, in shaa' Allaah.

« Last Edit: February 03, 2010, 12:50:53 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I think, for me, it's been reasonably shown that the Sacred Texts depicts Our Lord's Last Supper with some ambiguity. I also recognize that the Mind of the Church is forward looking... into eternity and not backward to what is past and fulfilled.

I believe if you hold to such a view, the only what to look at the Eucharist is as a foretaste of that Heavenly Banquet with Our Lord and not as a Jewish Seder. I guess we have to ask ourselves are with reenacting the past or enacting eternity?

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

I think, for me, it's been reasonably shown that the Sacred Texts depicts Our Lord's Last Supper with some ambiguity. I also recognize that the Mind of the Church is forward looking... into eternity and not backward to what is past and fulfilled.

I believe if you hold to such a view, the only what to look at the Eucharist is as a foretaste of that Heavenly Banquet with Our Lord and not as a Jewish Seder. I guess we have to ask ourselves are with reenacting the past or enacting eternity?

Speaking about the future, what about the baby?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

7 lbs. 4 oz. 20 1/2 inches... born on the Feast of the Presentation of Our Lord Feb. 2nd 2010

Aidan Michael

The Orthodox Priest came by yesterday to give my wife the Blessing of Mother after Birthing... (I don't know that actual name of he prayer). It was wonderful! He is also coming on the eighth day to discuss with us in more detail the significance of the Naming Rite...

« Last Edit: February 03, 2010, 02:39:27 PM by ignatius »

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

7 lbs. 4 oz. 20 1/2 inches... born on the Feast of the Presentation of Our Lord Feb. 2nd 2010

Aidan Michael

The Orthodox Priest came by yesterday to give my wife the Blessing of Mother after Birthing... (I don't know that actual name of he prayer). It was wonderful! He is also coming on the eighth day to discuss with us in more detail the significance of the Naming Rite...

Wonderful News!

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

7 lbs. 4 oz. 20 1/2 inches... born on the Feast of the Presentation of Our Lord Feb. 2nd 2010

Aidan Michael

The Orthodox Priest came by yesterday to give my wife the Blessing of Mother after Birthing... (I don't know that actual name of he prayer). It was wonderful! He is also coming on the eighth day to discuss with us in more detail the significance of the Naming Rite...

7 lbs. 4 oz. 20 1/2 inches... born on the Feast of the Presentation of Our Lord Feb. 2nd 2010

Aidan Michael

The Orthodox Priest came by yesterday to give my wife the Blessing of Mother after Birthing... (I don't know that actual name of he prayer). It was wonderful! He is also coming on the eighth day to discuss with us in more detail the significance of the Naming Rite...

Congratulations to you both, Ignatius.

Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

I suppose I should add something uniquely Roman Catholic to all of this. I was looking over differences between the old Vulgate and the Stuttgart and discovered that the Vulgate and Old Latin readings of the words of institution often read "effundetur" and "fundeter" (will be poured out) as opposed to "effunditur" and "funditer". If you attend a Roman Catholic mass (or a strictly translated WRO service), you will also hear "will be poured out" during the words of institution. In the Clementine Vulgate, this is in both Corinthians and the Synoptics, and both versions can be found in ancient Latin witnesses.

The old witnesses sometimes read one way in Mt and another in Mk. Thus the Marcan account in Codex Vercellensis reads "effundetur" where the Matthaean account reads "effunditur" (As a "Western non-interpolation, there is no second cup reading in Luke). This is obviously a very old Latin church thing. It was the liturgical understanding of the Western Church that the actual pouring out of his blood that Jesus' was referring to at the Last Supper... was Calvary, and that this was reflected in both the Mass and its Latin New Testament.

I stumbled on a paper from a scholar who was not happy that, in the past 40 years, this was corrected to read "is poured out," in both Weber's Stuttgart Vulgate and the new version. The paper cited linguistics as well as ancient patristic witnesses (St. Jerome, and Coptic translations?!?), and old Vulgates defending the translation choice, and also spent a bit of time defending the Johannine account of the Last Supper taking place BEFORE Passover.

I mentioned this very old Latin Church thing to the editor of the EOB New Testament and he seemed intrigued, at what looks, on the surface, to be a mistranslation of the Greek, and yet is more than that. If your understanding is that Liturgy reflects theology, then there is something here that was being said. That in Latin theology, the Last Supper - and the institution of the Eucharist - points to Calvary.